WASHINGTON — For years, Wisconsin farmers have cast a wary eye toward new laws and regulations from Washington they fear will be costly and burdensome.

Agricultural producers argue they know the best way to take care of their land -- not only to maximize production, and if they're lucky to make a profit, but also to preserve the acreage they depend on to survive.

Now, a rule being proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency outlining which bodies of water the agency would oversee under the Clean Water Act has again rattled the industry.

Farm groups contend the rule would expand the scope of water protected under the act to include not only rivers and lakes but ditches, stream-beds and self-made ponds that only carry water when it rains. Many farmers fear it amounts to nothing more than a land grab that could saddle them with higher costs, more regulatory red tape and less freedom to run their farms and ranches.

"It would really create an incredible overreach that is even greater than we have today," said Duane Maatz, executive director of the Wisconsin Potato & Vegetable Growers Association. "That would be hazardous to agriculture. It would cost jobs."

Maatz and other agriculture industry representatives, including the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation, fear farmers would have to pay for costly environmental assessments and apply for federal

permits allowing them to till soil, apply fertilizer or engage in some conservation practices because of the impact they might have on waterways that would be newly regulated by the EPA.

Applying for such a permit can take as long as two years and cost tens of thousands of dollars, according to some farmers -- a prohibitive price tag that would likely force farmers and ranchers to abandon such projects.

While there are exemptions to the rule for "normal farming activities," there's more confusion than clarity about what the exact impacts would be.

"We really have more questions than answers," said Karen Gefvert, director of government relations at the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation. "Will they need to get a permit. . . if they have a ditch that sometimes is wet or if they have a low-lying area in a field that after an extreme rain event has standing water in it for two days? You know, what does that mean for a farmer?"

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has repeatedly said the rule does not increase regulation or expand the scope of waters covered by the Clean Water Act. She also said it is "not a land grab" and pointed to the exemptions for "normal farming, ranching and agricultural practices" such as plowing, planting seed or minor drainage would be kept in place.

"If you were not legally required to have a permit before, the rule does not change that," McCarthy told farm broadcasters in May.

In Congress, more than 200 House lawmakers fired off a letter to McCarthy last month expressing "serious concerns" and asking her to withdraw the rule. Wisconsin Rep. Reid Ribble, the only member of the state's congressional delegation with a seat on an agriculture committee, signed on but says he is also exploring other routes to stop the EPA.

The Sherwood Republican said he hopes he and other House lawmakers will be able to eliminate funding for the implementation and enforcement of the rule.

"That's how the Congress uses the power of the purse to kind of change things if they don't like what an agency is doing," he said.

Whatever the result, the controversy surrounding the proposed water rule has already driven another spike in the growing fissure between the EPA and agriculture producers. Farmers and ranchers have become increasingly skeptical of the environmental agency's promises that it is looking out for their best interests and willing to work with them.

In the past few years alone, the EPA has been criticized for a series of proposals that would have hurt the agricultural community, including one that would have regulated dust in rural areas and another last November that would reduce the amount of renewable fuels, much of it from corn, required to be blended into the country's gasoline supply this year. The agency also was sharply criticized after it released private information on 80,000 agricultural producers to environmental groups last year.

McCarthy, who became administrator in July 2013, acknowledged during her confirmation hearing that the EPA's relationship with agriculture was "deteriorating" and said the agency has not done enough in the past to work withthe industry.

McCarthyand other EPA officials have tried to address the issue by stepping up outreach efforts -- conductingmore meetings, holding roundtables to hear directly from local growers and giving additional speeches to farm groups. This summer, they are planning another round of outreach to agriculture groups, hopefully to address concerns about the water rule.

EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe described the relationship as "evolving" and "one of mutual respect." They are natural allies, he said, with both of them focused on being good stewards of the land and protecting the environment.

"It's always been a dynamic kind of family relationship but I think it is definitely on the upswing," said Perciasepe. "I think they are noticing that we are trying to do things differently."

Bruce Babcock, an Iowa State University economist, said the breakdown in the relationship between agriculture and the EPA can be attributed to consolidation in the livestock industry where some animal feeding operations raising cattle, turkeys and chickens have grown significantly.

Livestock operations always have released methane in the air and sent manure flowing into nearby creeks and streams, but agriculture was left largely unregulated. The growth of massive animal operations, coupled with highly publicized spills into nearby streams, prompted questions during the 1990s about why farmers were essentially allowed to pollute, and didn't have to meet clean water, air and other regulations that were strictly imposed on other businesses, Babcock said.

He said it was only natural that the EPA "would bear the brunt of animosity" from farmers facing new regulations.

Babcock said the EPA is often left in a position where Congress writes the basic policy framework in the law, but leaves it up to the EPA to draft the detailed rules implementing it. The result is the EPA is left to face criticism from unhappy agriculture or environmental advocates no matter what decision it makes.

"The EPA is not like the USDA," Babcock said. "USDA is really an advocate for agriculture. EPA is not an advocate for agriculture, they are a regulator of agriculture. There is an intrinsic tension that is going to have to exist. If not, the regulator is not doing their duty."